golden rule in Maryland

2024Indeed, “[i]t has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that, when one of several possible interpretations produces an unreasonable result, that is a reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.” Id. at 34 . (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Kemp, 476 Md. at 170 (explaining that “it is important to consider the consequences of alternative interpretations of the statute, in order to avoid constructions that are illogical or nonsensical, or that render a statute meaningless[]” (internal quotations a

2022Indeed, “it has been 16 called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that, when one of several possible interpretations produces an unreasonable result, that is a reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Kemp, 476 Md. at 170 (explaining that “it is important to consider the consequences of alternative interpretations of the statute, in order to avoid constructions that are illogical or nonsensical, or that render a statute meaningless[]”) (internal quotations and cit

2010See D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534 , *334 538, 578 A.2d 1177, 1179-80 (1990) (“It has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that unreasonableness of the result produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 15 Even though City contracts involving solely the disposition of property for redevelopment are not subject to competitive bidding requirements, we must still consider whether the LDA was a

2010See D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534 , *334 538, 578 A.2d 1177, 1179-80 (1990) (“It has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that unreasonableness of the result produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 15 Even though City contracts involving solely the disposition of property for redevelopment are not subject to competitive bidding requirements, we must still consider whether the LDA was a

2012It is well settled that, “[ujnjust enrichment is a claim ... that may not be reduced neatly to a golden rule.” Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281, 295 , 936 A.2d 343, 351 (2007).

2012It is well settled that, “[ujnjust enrichment is a claim ... that may not be reduced neatly to a golden rule.” Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281, 295 , 936 A.2d 343, 351 (2007).

1998As we have noted on prior occasions: “It has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that unreasonableness of the result produced by one among *662 alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.” D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538 , 578 A.2d 1177, 1179-80 (1990) (quoting 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45.12 (4th ed.1984)); see Dickerson v. State, 324 Md. 163, 171 , 596 A.2d 648, 652 (1991).

1998As we have noted on prior occasions: “It has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that unreasonableness of the result produced by one among *662 alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.” D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538 , 578 A.2d 1177, 1179-80 (1990) (quoting 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45.12 (4th ed.1984)); see Dickerson v. State, 324 Md. 163, 171 , 596 A.2d 648, 652 (1991).

1991Discussion The trial court may grant a new trial pursuant to Md.Rule 2-533, 2 “where there is a fair probability that to *568 fail to do so would deny a party the right to a fair trial,” Thodos v. Bland, 75 Md.App. 700, 708, 542 A.2d 1307 (1988) (citing Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 419 , 470 A.2d 802 (1984)), or where it is necessary “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Niemeyer and Richards, Maryland Rules Commentary 320 (1984).

1991Discussion The trial court may grant a new trial pursuant to Md.Rule 2-533, 2 “where there is a fair probability that to *568 fail to do so would deny a party the right to a fair trial,” Thodos v. Bland, 75 Md.App. 700, 708, 542 A.2d 1307 (1988) (citing Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 419 , 470 A.2d 802 (1984)), or where it is necessary “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Niemeyer and Richards, Maryland Rules Commentary 320 (1984).